A complaint about the Rybka / ICGA case was sent to FIDE Ethics Commission in 2012. The FIDE decision was made in 2014. It was delivered recently. Atm. we're not allowed to publish the judgement as a whole, but we may quote from it.The complaint is attached.

Although nothing concrete has been repaired for Vas yet, the message from FIDE makes me proud that it put most on the illegal process of the whole Hyatt&ICGA show. From the beginning I argued against the dense air of a sort of lynch logic and public character assassinating of Vas especially by our huge expert of the Law = Hyatt who always won the jury law cases in the USA. Then I find it a gtrat decision of the justice expert of FIDE that he condemned the dirty argument by Levy and his dung boy who claimed that Vas did it all by himself because he didnt defend himself -- although the Papal ICGA officers have given him all the chances he needed. Also here in RF we had many who painted Vas as a sort of idiot or somehow as someone who could have no defense and otherwise he would have brown-nosed Levys ###. In special the otherwise sympa Nelson tried to blame Vas on that totally wrong path, as if he were a bit deranged. Now we know that the ICGA had neither correct rules for the managing of a profound debate between defendant and King Levy nor a rule how someone should be treated with human style who was suspised for something incorrect --- IMO it's a typical fallacy of CC nerds who are using a reduced logic. If someone violates rule 2, THEN he could be treated like sub-human or such some. Absolute lack of decent style... Vas behaved absolutely sane and very clever in special by NOT appearing in the forum and to allow Hyatt to screw him. I am speechless that I as a justice lay had all the correct legal views against Hyatt although I was never in a court like him. Now it's clear that the typical mass auto-suggestion cooked the brains of all those who wanted to destroy Vas. Nobody came forward to give a warning that perhaps their campaign against Vas was unfair. Ok, I#m just a lay here but I want to thank again Vas programmer collegues who defended him. In specialthose who were victims in the unfair panel practice. Thanks for your energy, your stamina and willingness to lay your own reputation on the table against so many hateful egotists.

No one in the ICGA questioned during the time of the inquisition just how unethical their course of action was! Not a soul. Everyone who had a part in the ICGA action or was a supporter, was a committed Vas is guilty advocate. While the investigation was in full swing. You had Watkins feeding Hyatt into a frenzy of vituperative railings directed at Vas. No one voiced any concern as to the speed of which the whole affair was moving. Vas didn't stand a chance.

Others, here were openly regarding the ICGA's actions as a mob lynching. That didn't phase those who were gong ho involved in the ICGA proceedings.

With regard to FIDE! NO, they should, of course NOT, discuss the technical aspect of this case, In point of fact, the whole of the technical aspects of this case, should only be seen as from a purely ethical perspective, and disregarded as such. What do I mean by that?

FIDE EC didn't need to consider the technical aspect of the ICGA action- The collection of the data, and its distribution to known player to exploit and manipulate the data the verdict was pure practiced Machiavellianism; the truth of its ethical reprehensibility becoming only all to clear when used to fuel the ICGA s verdict of a life ban. That data can not be regarded as viable evidence. The actions behind it were so incredible contaminated with "BIAS." You'd have to retry Vas under very different conditions. The ICGA's case by ethical standards alone should have be thrown out.

> The actions behind it were so incredible contaminated with "BIAS." You'd have to retry Vas under very different conditions. The ICGA's case by ethical standards alone should have be thrown out.

Yes exactly right in my view. The ICGA should allow an appeal if one is asked for, with NONE of the original experts or panel involved and with no conflict of interest or vested interests, and with proper procedures. In my view it should in fact be experts _outside_ the chess field. That way we get a proper objective assessment of the data.

Of course, none of this will happen. The ICGA do not want to wash their dirty laundry in public and admit the flaws in their investigation.

Yes exactly right in my view. The ICGA should allow an appeal if one is asked for, with NONE of the original experts or panel involved and with no conflict of interest or vested interests, and with proper procedures. In my view it should in fact be experts _outside_ the chess field. That way we get a proper objective assessment of the data.

Of course, none of this will happen. The ICGA do not want to wash their dirty laundry in public and admit the flaws in their investigation.

FIDE Ethics Committee slams ICGA board as incompetent amateurs, ignorant of the law and breaching Vas Rajlich's rights to a fair hearing. ICGA convicted of bringing FIDE into disrepute and requested to make amends and alter its statutes and procedures.

Chairman Mr. Roberto Rivello of the FIDE Ethic CommissionJurist and Judge in Italy with jurisdiction on criminal cases Professor of International Law and International Organization at the University of Turin

Quote-1In occasion of the oral hearing in front of the EC, Mr Levy confirmed that ICGA has no rules on these issues.

However, in the documents submitted by the parties, quite strong and specific words were used, such as “tribunal”, “innocence”, “guilty” and “verdict”.

In an article written by Mr Levy (together with Mr H.J. van den Herik, Mr A.Plaat and Mr D. Dimov) and submitted to the EC by the ICGA, the proceedings against Mr Rajlich are defined as follows: “The investigation, the report of the investigation, and the verdict that Rajlich was guilty of the plagiarism took place in the form of a version of Crowdsourced Online Dispute Resolution (CODR)”.

In another ICGA’s publication, the words “peer review” were used.

It seems clear that all these words and definitions do not correspond to their technical meaning. They have been used by analogy by persons who are not experts in law.

Quote-2Members of the ICGA’s Executive Committee ignored they had to respect specific rules if they intended to carry out disciplinary proceedings against Mr Rajlich. Ignorance of the law is no excuse, especially for persons charged of main responsibilities in a given organisation: they had and will have the duty to apply FIDE and national mandatory rules. However, they were not jurists and they were convinced to act in the best interest of their organisation.

Quote-3In addition, Mr Rajlich was not informed about the existence of real disciplinary proceedings against him nor about the risk to be sanctioned this way. He was informed, and in a very informal way, only about the proceedings concerning “Tournament rule 2” and it is clear –from the exchange of messages between him and Mr Levy- that he was not fully acquainted with the possible multifaceted nature of the proceedings and his right to be heard. One person who is informed that his behaviour could be qualified as a cheating and sanctioned with a lifetime ban is likely to assume different decisions about his defence, in comparison to a person who just know about the risk to be disqualified from a tournament.

Quote-4The EC unanimously rules that:

- Otherwise, by imposing a lifetime ban as a sanction against Mr Rajlich, in absence of a clear statutory basis and without sufficient procedural guarantees for Mr Rajlich, the ICGA did not act in accordance with FIDE rules, this way violating par. 2.2 and 2.2.10 of the FIDE Code of Ethics.

- ICGA has to be sanctioned with a warning and has to be invited to modify their statutes in accordance with FIDE principles and rules.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

As it seems Mr Rajlich with the FIDE ruling has now the right tools to effectively fight the ICGA verdict and undo the damage Dr. Levy caused to his business and reputation. Usuage of words like plagiarized as found in the official press release that got worldwide attention are to be found breaches of the FIDE rules the ICGA has submitted itself to as an affiliated organization of FIDE.

This of course is the pregnant quote from Professor Ravello, Judge, Jurist and Professor of International law:

The EC unanimously rules that:

- Otherwise, by imposing a lifetime ban as a sanction against Mr Rajlich, in absence of a clear statutory basis and without sufficient procedural guarantees for Mr Rajlich, the ICGA did not act in accordance with FIDE rules, this way violating par. 2.2 and 2.2.10 of the FIDE Code of Ethics.

"without sufficient procedural guarantees for Mr Rajlich" does of course, although this is not for the FIDE EC to say as they have not the power over ICGA other than Ethics, mean that the VERDICT is also unsustainable. Mr Rajlich's rights were withheld and the law was ignored by the ICGA (as FIDE EC also wrote) and this nulls not just the sentence but also the verdict. Null process.

> However, they were not jurists and they were convinced to act in the best interest of their organisation.

To what conclusions does this above referenced statement follow up with , in its final analysis of the ICGA having committed any "major" violation of the FIDE Code of Ethics? Which when rendered does give some equivocation to the outcome of the FIDE proceeding.

To assume that the ICGA is not at fault by virtue that "they were convinced to act in the best interest of their organisation" and therefore any conduct attributed to them by way of misconduct was only a minor breech of ethics?! That! is one of the shortest and most ludicrous of notions, by way of argument , I've every encountered in any grievance noted to date.

Quote, Ravello, International Professor of Law:In addition, Mr Rajlich was not informed about the existence of real disciplinary proceedings against him nor about the risk to be sanctioned this way. He was informed, and in a very informal way, only about the proceedings concerning “Tournament rule 2” and it is clear –from the exchange of messages between him and Mr Levy- that he was not fully acquainted with the possible multifaceted nature of the proceedings and his right to be heard. One person who is informed that his behaviour could be qualified as a cheating and sanctioned with a lifetime ban is likely to assume different decisions about his defence, in comparison to a person who just know about the risk to be disqualified from a tournament.

What do think this one means? Seems pretty damn clear. IF ICGA informed about the nature of the multi-faceted process and the sanctioning risk and his right to be heard (mimimum legal requirement in any jurisdiction, according to Ravello) THEN there would likely have been a defence and a possibly very different outcome. His rights were denied by ICGA, the verdict went another way: verdict therefore nullified - prosecuting, judging and sentencing authority ignored the law. Or do you think Professor Ravello, International Professor of Law, Jurist and Judge, is trying to say something else here?

If I recall the document correctly (I have it saved on another computer), this was concerning the complaint about Rybka being ruled a derivative, not the complaint about Vas being banned for life. Also, getting into it in more detail, it was dismissed because FIDE lacks "jurisdiction" and "competence" regarding the matter at hand with that particular complaint.

I think that when the entire document is posted on the FIDE web site, it will open up more bickering than ever--there are definitely some statements in it that I would consider unclear, which could make for a great show between a few people.

Perhaps I'm wrong in what I'm seeing here -FIDE needs to make sure they follow through with more punch on their ethical position against the ICGA. I hope this is not just a word game on their part and close the door.

There is one concern I have in seeing FIDE outright-dismiss the complaint against the ICGA using Rule 2 against Vas. -which it subsequently leaves in place the verdict of Vas' being guilty of "plagiarism".

FIDE later broaches the subject of tournament rules -

"For any decision concerning a violation of their tournament rules, ICGA has not to respect a given model of procedural rules, even less the principles of a “fair trial”, just because this is not a trial."

"Against this decision, as already clarified, no FIDE organ has appeal competence.There are no violations of any FIDE rules."

This ruling is important in that it impacts on the entirety of the complaint. This leaves the door open for "nothing to change" other than taking Levy by the back of the neck and noting the notoriety of the ICGA's action.

Well, yes, the ICGA's interpretation of their "Rule 2" doesn't violate any FIDE rules because there aren't any FIDE rules on this. However, as the document makes clear, the procedure used was not the type of procedure that would be used when sanctions could potentially be involved, and this is where the ethics violations lie, especially in the lifetime ban.

Speaking of Levy, I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Levy is the really corrupt one here, and was such the whole time. It should be he that everyone should be going after, and continue to do so. Among all involved, he's the one who's the scum of the Earth.

I disagree with Harvey's participation on the Secretariat, but given the opportunity, I think that people representing most commercial entities would accept it. The real problem was Levy's appointments in the first place--he knew the end result, and he did it anyway.

I'll say it again- FIDE needs to qualify this statement, or they are in themselves- in breech of their own ethical standards.

"However, they were not jurists and they were convinced to act in the best interest of their organisation. This has to be taken into account and it is possible to qualify the committed violation of the FIDE Code of Ethics as a minor one."

what were their best interests????

The rush to judgement! Secretariat - each had something to gain.

In addition, Mr Rajlich was not informed about the existence of real disciplinary proceedings against him nor about the risk to be sanctioned this way.

Total ban-

Just to mention a few tidbits.

I'm sure you could comb the FIDE EC report for more reasons why the ICGA (Levy) were convinced to take action in their own best interest, and not in the interest of justice - not in the interests ot the greater good of the computer chess community-and certainly not in an effort to find the truth of whether Vas was innocent or guilty.

But,they sure got out of it what they could that would benefited the select few who organized that charade, and used it for self -grandiosity.

To assume that the ICGA is not at fault by virtue that "they were convinced to act in the best interest of their organisation" and therefore any conduct attributed to them by way of misconduct was only a minor breech of ethics?!

Again!

That! is one of the shortest and most ludicrous of notions, by way of argument , I've ever encountered in any grievance noted to date.

FIDE is in a double bind, put into it by Levy's actions. Again, I might be wrong, but I don't think so. The only way out for FIDE is to make a clean break from having anything to do with the ICGA . If the ICGA doesn't clean up their act. That would mean cleaning up this whole affair with Rajlich.

It is getting difficult for you, Harvey -but look your guys did walk away with just a warning. When the ICGA should have been given the most severe penalty available , with a call for a complete change in the ICGA's administration.

The entire premise here is that the ICGA (Levy) will, cower under the miffed shadow of a group of FIDE administrators?! Or, unleash Hyatt to banter back an impenitent response using Rybka Forum for his pulpit!

For those who have read the entire ruling, the FIDE EC was very critical of the manner in which the ICGA handled this matter, and it should be clear that the ICGA was very lucky that the current FIDE appeals process was not in place in 2011. This was not a good result for the ICGA, and David was obviously concerned enough to make the trip up to Tromsø to argue his case.

Luckily for David and the ICGA, Chris and Vas were not able to make the trip, and the ICGA escaped with a warning rather than a reprimand. It is hard to overestimate the importance of attending this type of hearing. As the learned scholar Woody Allen once said: "80% of life is showing up."

The major concern for the FIDE EC was that the matter had the potential to place FIDE "in an unjustifiable unfavorable light."

"Sanctioning Mr Rajlich with a lifetime ban, ICGA violated par. 2.2 and par. 2.2.10 of the FIDE Code of Ethics. Par. 2.2 concerns an “organization who directly or indirectly acts contrary to FIDE Code of Ethics”; par. 2.2.10 “occurrences which cause … FIDE … to appear in an unjustifiable unfavourable light and in this way damage its reputation”. In this case it was accomplished a violation of rules that are mandatory for FIDE and FIDE organisations and from this occurrence FIDE can appear in an unjustifiable unfavourable light."

Unlike the ICGA, FIDE takes its reputation very seriously, and if the ICGA were to handle another case like it did the Rybka matter, they shouldn't expect the leniency that was proffered on this occasion. Going forward, David will either have to change the ICGA's procedures for handling future matters, or reevaluate the ICGA's relationship with FIDE.

Or resign. Apologising on the way out. Then perhaps wiser heads can prevail and recognise that if the Rule 2 Rybka case were heard now, the best the attackers could hope for would be a "not proven" verdict. And the closure that Jeremy Bernstein wishes for over on Open Chess could take place.

AP, FIDE is here considering the LEVEL OF PENALTY to apply to the ICGA for (I paraphrase) denying Vas Rajlich his rights and ignoring the law. They say that becuse the ICGA is (I paraphrase) a bunch of incompetent amateurs (or imposters, better expression), then FIDE will not impose a maximum sanction on them. They didn't know the law, that is no excuse, as Ravello said, but it got them a lighter sentence from FIDE EC. FIDE EC are not minimising what ICGA did, they are lightenimg their sentence on them for what they did (which was serious).

Really sounds like a slam The EC judgement states that the ICGA has committed a "violation of the FIDE Code of Ethics" which is a "minor one". And the FIDE Ethics Commssion states (page 16) that a "warning [to the ICGA] is a sufficient sanction" for this minor violation. This is regarding the lifetime ban.

Say what! But I agree that compared with what Israel does to the Palestinian people on a regular basis, I wouldnt call it genocide what Levy did against Vas... it just was a destruction of a existence in the absence of any legal rules. Let's remain patient what that could cost the ICGA and their President...

The question is whether FIDE has, or think it has, jurisdiction here. If FIDE doesn't then it cannot act as an appeal committee and ICGA verdict stands. So far I haven't seen anything regarding this, it has only been about the flawed procedures or something like this, which is rather irrelevant.

I haven't looked into the details, but I'm pretty sure the EC is not an appeal body. So there is no way for the EC to legally overturn the ICGA's decision. But, as far as I understand, the EC did conclude that the whole procedure leading up to the decision was flawed in that it did not comply with FIDE standards.

If you're only interested in "does the decision stand or not", then you might consider such flaws irrelevant. However, the ICGA *might* now feel obliged to recognise that the procedure was flawed and that therefore the decision cannot stand. In any event, that the procedure was flawed implies that it was unfair and also raises doubts as to the material correctness of its outcome.

The complaint concerns alleged behaviours of the representatives of the ICGA.

The ICGA can be qualified, from a juridical point of view, as a non-governmental organisation (NGO), based on a national legal order.

The ICGA is an organisation affiliated to FIDE.

Chapter 1.4 of the FIDE Code of Ethics enounces clearly its applicability to “affiliated organisations”.Therefore, the EC has competence on breaches of the FIDE Code of Ethics allegedly committed by the ICGA and its representatives.

On the contrary, the EC has no appeal competence on ICGA’s decisions concerning the application of ICGA’s rules, for the following reasons:

- Before the reform of the FIDE Statutes, in 2012, the EC had no appeal competences at all, not even on member federations, and this case concerns facts committed in 2011.- For an affiliated organisation, an EC appeal competence has to be accepted explicitly by this organisation, and this is not the case for the ICGA.

Consequently, EC has no competence about the merit of ICGA’s decision concerning Mr Rajlich’s behaviour and alleged violations of ICGA internal rules, nor about ICGA’s reconstruction of some alleged facts of “plagiarism” or “cheating” during the World Computer Chess Championships.

Only the national judge, identified in accordance with the rules of international private law, can have jurisdiction on that, applying the relevant national legal order. In other words, about these issues, Mr Rajlich can lodge a complaint in front of the competent ordinary judge but not in front of the EC.

Therefore, all arguments focused on these aspects, raised by the opposing parties, have no relevance for the current proceedings and have to be dismissed."

So technically, the EC at this point in time (but not when the Rybka matter was decided) is willing to function as an appeal body, but only for organizations that agree to this, but I wouldn't be holding my breath waiting for the ICGA to sign up!

So basically, this means that FIDE has no power over ICGA on the matter. If the point of complaint was to overturn the ICGA's decision then ICGA essentially won. FIDE won't do anything, it's up to ICGA to consider whether they should take another look based on the fact of procedural flaws. Frankly I think they just throw the ball back to Vas and say sue us or shut up.

So basically, this means that FIDE has no power over ICGA on the matter.

FIDE has no power over the policies instituted by the ICGA, in fact, it states they can be completely arbitrary:

"FIDE tournaments rules were not applicable to those tournaments.

ICGA has exclusive competence on the interpretation of their tournament rules.

For any decision concerning a violation of their tournament rules, ICGA has not to respect a given model of procedural rules, even less the principles of a “fair trial”, just because this is not a trial. Exactly as a chief arbiter or a tournament director may impose penalties or disqualify a player from a competition without respecting a given model of procedural rules."

What FIDE can insist on is that the rules and any penalties for not following the rules be clearly documented and followed, and that these rules and policies conform to FIDE standards. The FIDE EC established that in essence, their were very few rules, and they were open to varying interpretations. The FIDE EC commented on their inadequacy here:

"To be able to decide if ICGA violated FIDE rules, it is preliminary necessary to identify what rules had to be applied by ICGA’s organs in their internal proceedings and what is the juridical nature of these proceedings.

ICGA’s “Constitution and By-laws” –a very concise document- does not contain any rule about disciplinary sanctions and proceedings and never mentions the same possibility to constitute an organ charged to evaluate violations of disciplinary rules.

The only ICGA existing rule applicable in the proceedings against Mr Rajlich was “Tournament Rule 2” of the World Computer Chess Championships: “Each program must be the original work of the entering developers. Programming teams whose code is derived from or including game-playing code written by others must name all other authors, or the source of such code, in the details of their submission form. Programs which are discovered to be close derivatives of others (e.g., by playing nearly all moves the same), may be declared invalid by the Tournament Director after seeking expert advice”.

This is also the only “legal basis” mentioned by the “ICGA's verdict”, where it is added, as a source for the identification of the sanction, that “the ICGA has borne in mind the approach of the International Olympic Committee for dealing with the most serious cases of the violations of its rules”. No other rules are mentioned.

In occasion of the oral hearing in front of the EC, Mr Levy confirmed that ICGA has no rules on these issues.

However, in the documents submitted by the parties, quite strong and specific words were used, such as “tribunal”, “innocence”, “guilty” and “verdict”.

In an article written by Mr Levy (together with Mr H.J. van den Herik, Mr A.Plaat and Mr D. Dimov) and submitted to the EC by the ICGA, the proceedings against Mr Rajlich are defined as follows: “The investigation, the report of the investigation, and the verdict that Rajlich was guilty of the plagiarism took place in the form of a version of Crowdsourced Online Dispute Resolution (CODR)”.

In another ICGA’s publication, the words “peer review” were used.

It seems clear that all these words and definitions do not correspond to their technical meaning. They have been used by analogy by persons who are not experts in law.

In the opinion of the EC, ICGA’s proceedings and decisions against Mr Rajlich had a double nature: from one side they concerned the evaluation of an assumed violation of ICGA’s tournament rules, from another side they were extended to punish a behaviour that was considered also as a violation of ICGA’s not written disciplinary-ethical rules (ICGA maintains that “Rajlich was not accused of violating any ethics code. He was accused of cheating”, but cheating is exactly a typical example of violation of disciplinary-ethics codes)."

The FIDE EC is stating here that the ICGA has no real rules for these types of procedures, but just made things up as they went along.

If the point of complaint was to overturn the ICGA's decision then ICGA essentially won.

The ICGA didn't lose, but it's hard to say they won. The Judgement wasn't kind to the ICGA and cast aspersions at their policies and procedures. David Levy had to prepare and spend time and money traveling to Tromsø to brief the FIDE EC. The judgement also issues a warning to the ICGA to desist from future behavior that may place FIDE in an unfavorable light. This was treated lightly as a first offense, but more serious sanctions can be envisioned if the ICGA repeats this scenario.

Frankly I think they just throw the ball back to Vas and say sue us or shut up

This Judgement would certainly be a very useful document for Vas to have if he wanted to pursue additional actions. It is a clear and concise statement of the issues by an independent legal panel, which points out the sparsity of the bylaws, and the fact that there were no written sanctions. I very much doubt Vas will take further actions, but if he does, the effort expended on the FIDE EC action will have been worthwhile.

Leon's reply is exactly what I was thinking in response to the Good Dr.'s post. Roger's reply seems to partially miss the point, given that Vas didn't take any "next malicious steps" and it's quite clear that he doesn't think that he violated Rule 2, let alone committed any cheating. (I think that the great majority of reasonable and intelligent people will agree that Vas didn't cheat, though many will believe that he technically violated Rule 2.)

If you were even to assume that Vas was guilty for entering Rybka using (I'm not even sure of the dates anymore) Crafty code in 2004(?). The ethical misconduct in the handling of the case and specifically the evidence against him (including the way Rybka 1.6.1 was procured.), would be enough to throw all that out as inadmissible in a retrial.

The only issue left would be to determine whether Vas used ideas or actual copied Fruit code. We would end up no doubt with a great deal of hypothetical assertions - with Hyatt claiming them to be good evidence. But no matter what one does the hypothesis they base their promise on are still assumptions and those assumptions only lead to mere assertions and not real factual evidence.

It is up to the accusers to furnish factual evidence of guilt! Not up to the accused to prove his innocence when his accusers are furnishing assertions based solely on what amounts to in this case smoke and minors .

> It is up to the accusers to furnish factual evidence of guilt! Not up to the accused to prove his innocence when his accusers are furnishing assertions based solely on what amounts to in this case smoke and minors .

This is only true before the verdict is issued. After the verdict, the burden of proof falls on the accused.